|
No.
When you opted to use a freeware product, you opted to use the terms that came with it. Removing the author, company, etc. is essentially plagiarism.
|
|
|
|
|
What do the terms of use and the license say in the source library?
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to seem pro, use an installer.
|
|
|
|
|
An installer is overkill, plus the way the application is built, some customers would have dozens of our installers cluttering up their programs/menus. 
This has been one of our primary methods for module/utility deployments and/or updates for over a dozen years. The previous self-extracting archive builder was starting to show it's age and needed replacing. The new system now works better than the old system...less intermediate files, cleans up after itself perfectly, uses a custom icon, and best of all, doesn't puke on long filenames anymore! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: An installer is overkill, plus the way the application is built, some customers would have dozens of our installers cluttering up their programs/menus.
If your installer is leaving a shortcut on the start menu, YOU are DOING IT WRONG and have been breaking the guidelines dating back to at least win2k ([^] who should have their keyboards broken). They should only leave an entry under add/remove programs.
PS that citation was picked not to single out a specific offender but because MS's love to randomly reorganize the URLs to all their online documentation and break existing links to the older versions meant I couldn't easily find the official documentation.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
My technical answer to your ethical question:
That information belongs to the executable (the extracting code) and the embedded archive is just payload. So it correctly tells what kind of file it is, who created it, and should not be changed therefore.
Is the self-extracting executable started manually by users or by one of your applications?
In the latter case there should be even no need to change the properties.
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: The question is this: Is it OK to replace the Author, Company, and Icon resources in the freeware library so that you and your company are credited with the contents of the created archive?
I'm pretty sure this is illegal, and of course unethical.
Since 7-Zip seems to be distributed under LGPL, you could either:
- Write the code that calls into 7-Zip code as a DLL or such, and release only that portion under LGPL and license the rest of your application commercially. If I am correct, the other code in your application CANNOT CALL this code directly, even as load as a library, but instead must 'run' it from the outside. This is less desirable in my opinion; just read the next option to know why (OR)
- Instead of using 7-Zip code, you could call it as an external executable (like, by using ShellExecute) or so. By doing so, you're not using 7-Zip code, but only their binaries. And so your entire code could be shipped with a commercial license. This is what we do with ffmpeg and matsim.
Note: As you may already know, any advice given in this forum may not be appropriate legal advice.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid I may have been misunderstood about what is going on here. I would never modify the properties of someone else's compiled code (exe, dll, whatever) and claim ownership. Of course that would be illegal! I am only concerned with the properties of the self extracting archive created and compiled on my computer and containing files used by my clients. Yes, the self extracting archive was built using an open source library, but does that mean that the that self extracting executable needs to show 'Igor Pavlov' and '7-zip' as the author and company in the file properties?
I have read through the faqs and license terms and can't find anything related to this question, which is why I asked here.
Edit: Yes to #2...I'm doing just that...a command line copy that combines the compiled 7-zip sfx, a config.txt file and a .7z archive containing an installer executable and one or more files that will be installed/updated on the client. The output of the copy yields the self extracting exe. It seems it might be fair to modify the properties to show both authors and companies.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
modified 30-Aug-16 10:44am.
|
|
|
|
|
You replied to yourself: your Word documents are yours, not Microsoft's. So for the end products made with any software.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
|
|
|
|
|
The edited OP is a bit more clear.
kmoorevs wrote: It seems it might be fair to modify the properties to show both authors and companies.
That sounds about right to me.
|
|
|
|
|
You should respect and honor the work of the authors.
If you would read the FAQ of 7-zip you would praise there generosity.
And maybe be feel a bit mortified 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose you wrote a new database system, and kindly released it into the wild as freeware.
Then you found that one company had taken it, used it as part of a solution they were paid for, and had removed your name and company from it on the grounds that they supplied the data it processes.
Would you consider that fair?
Because that is what you are proposing to do.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
That's not exactly what he's proposing, he's got a self-extracting exe produced by 7-Zip and he wants to change the properties of that resulting exe. It's like just because he embedded the DB into his exe (say it's a memory resident db) the db overtakes the copyright of the entire exe? Doesn't seem right. In any case, 7-Zip does allow one to change copyright info on the produced exe so long as you also give obvious credit to 7-Zip somewhere.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
I've edited the OP clarifying my intent...I fully intend to place a blurb in the installers to mention 7-zip and thank the author.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
If I find your wallet on the street: Do you mind if I say it is mine?
[EDIT:] Given the answer below, I am sorry for my impolite comment.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
modified 30-Aug-16 10:39am.
|
|
|
|
|
Here's your answer[^].
In short, yes you can change the SFX properties.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! That's just what I was looking for! Thanks! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
As a side note, what are you using to change the properties? I personally use rcedit[^] for that.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Brisingr Aerowing wrote: what are you using to change the properties?
Per the other post, I used resource hacker.
As a side note, it felt kind of dirty using a program called resource hacker! 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
I think this blog will do the trick. How to Change the Metadata Stored in Executable Files in Windows[^]. The example uses ResEdit Resource Editor - free resource editor for Win32[^] app.
For your main question, I don't see a problem on it, since you didn't claim or remove the ownership of 7-Zip freeware. You just only update the output of the file metadata after using the freeware. You can think as changing dll details(AssemblyTitle, AssemblyCompany, AssemblyCopyright) while you building your app.
[EDIT]
Caution: I wouldn't change the icon though. If you do, It might mislead the original file type by just looking at the icon.
Wonde Tadesse
modified 30-Aug-16 13:16pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply! I've already got the resources changed and modified the installer with a label crediting 7-Zip and Mr. Pavlov. It works wonderfully! (for now!)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
That's works too.
Wonde Tadesse
|
|
|
|
|
See what the license has to say about that. If you're allowed to use the library while giving credit, go for it. Otherwise, not.
By your description, you aren't faking anything. The properties of YOUR binary indicate you as the author, what's wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
|
What does the license for the open source library say? If you do what's allowed by the license it's neither illegal nor unethical. The open source developer(s) chose the license to release the code under. If they wanted to require credit or to prevent or restrict certain modifications they could have done so.
If you break the license, on the other hand you could potentially be sued. (I'll leave the ethics question to the philosophers).
If I'm understanding your question right I don't think you have an issue. You're not redistributing the open source code in source or binary form correct? You're proposing modifying the open source code to suit your needs and change what it outputs? In that case I am not even sure gpl or lgpl would come into play. I believe (I could be wrong so double check for yourself) they only cover redistribution of the code in source or binary form. If you make modifications and use them internally to accomplish a task I don't think they require you to credit anyone or make your mods available or do anything else. I know MIT and the other less obnoxious licenses would not. I don't use gpl code ever, and rarely use lgpl code so I haven't reviewed those licenses in awhile.
But to repeat, follow the rules and if what you're doing is not prohibited, then it's allowed. Open source authors have ample means to restrict how people use their stuff. I would not overly concern myself with their potential hurt feelings. Just follow the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Here you go, straight from gpl:
Quote: The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work.
and
Quote: You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
Does that answer your question?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
